A relatively low tech solution could be to give them 2 separate conferencing links, ask them to join each one from a different device, and have the secondary device point the camera and the screen of the primary device.
> My first real programming achievement was building a website for an Ultima Online shard
Mine too! My second one was changing the map (remove static items, add new islands and buildings, etc), and my third one was changing verdata.mul to add new animations and item graphics.
Playing Ultima Online on an unofficial POL server literally got me into IT. I was studying to be an accountant before that.
I agree this is the silliest part! Even if you are interested in them, the only option is often now or never again. Even worse sometimes you open an app/site and the onboarding/what's new pops up with a delay and you end up accidentally dismissing it without even seeing what it was
My experience with AS3 is limited to a single project ~18 years ago, but I still remember it with fondness. No other language ever got close to how much I liked AS3.
> Not wanting and not having a choice are two different things.
As a general statement, sure. But if we are talking about mobile phones this is a very privileged and unrealistic point of view.
According to chatgpt, 70-80% of mobile phone sold worldwide every year cost less than the cheaper iPhone.
Some people could probably stretch their budget and get the cheapest iPhone, but otherwise it seems safe to conclude that more than 50% of people simply have no choice.
That's a fair observation, and yet anecdotally I agree with the parent comment. In my career I fixed quite a few bugs about dates being passed around and unexpectedly modified, while I struggle to remember the same problem with objects in general (could be a case of selective memory).
If I had the guess, I'd say it's a combination of:
- the difference between the mental model and the implementation. Dates are objects but "feel" like values: dates are parsed from a single value, and when stored/printed they collapse back to a single value (as opposed to custom objects which are generally a bag of properties, and when printed/stored they still look like an object)
- most common date operations causes the original date object to be mutated, which implicitly causes developers to mutate the passed value even if that's not what they explicitly meant
So the default combination is a calling code that expects date to be treated as a value, and the called code accidentally mutating the data because it's convenient to do so. If anything then causes the original value to be saved back in the db, the data gets corrupted.
Most experienced developers will remember to make a copy of the date object both in the calling code and in the receiving code, but the default remains dangerously easy to get wrong.
I wonder if we are getting different versions based on geolocation (I'm in Europe) because my experience is the absolute opposite of this. I actually had the thought "maybe I should switch to apple to stop having to deal with this" just this week (although reading this thread siri is as bad).
My experience is only through android auto and it honestly makes me furious how bad it is. There is absolutely no other tech product in my life that gets even close to how bad voice commands are handled in Android.
In my experience, literally everything sucks:
- single language voice recognition (me speaking in English with an accent)
- multi language voice recognition (english commands that include localised names from the country I'm in)
- action in context (understand what I'm actually asking it to do)
- supported actions (what it can actually do)
Some practical examples from just this week:
- I had to repeat 3 times that "no I don't want to reply" because I made the mistake of getting google to read a whatsapp message while driving, and it got stuck into the "would you like to reply" (it almost always gets stuck - it's my goto example to show people how bad it is)
- I asked it to queue a very specific playlist on Spotify, and it just couldn't get it right (no matter how specific my command was, I couldn't get it to play a playlist from MY. account instead of playing an unrelated public playlist)
- I asked to add a song to a playlist, and it said it couldn't do that (at least it understood what I was asking? maybe)
And in general I gave up trying to use google maps through voice commands, because it's just not capable of understanding an English command if it contains a street/location name pronounced in the local language/accent.
> I don't think it's safe to assume so at all. Granted, I only know one journalist, and they've told me they only use LLMs in their work to gather further sources/references to check, everything else they still do "manually" with their own hands.
I'd argue that your example falls under "which may have used AI in the preparation", which was exactly my point. (I actually had using AI for research as an example, but English is not my first language and I couldn't get the sentence to sound correct and chatGPT suggested I drop it)
> The editorial team should know exactly the scope of their teams AI usage. The snark mostly comes from them not knowing if AI was used or not, and they be upfront about them not knowing it. Feels like they're missing integrity if they don't know such things.
I don't see this as a lack of integrity, but rather as a futile attempt at being transparent. Everyone else is in the same position, they are just not adding a disclaimer.
And that's nothing specific about journalists, this applies to all professions. At most you can say what your official policy states, but you have absolutely no way of knowing how your employees/coworkers are using AIs.
Considering that "using AI" can mean anything from "AI wrote the whole article" to "the author used AI to check the grammar", I'd argue this disclaimer is unnecessary and it's safe to assume AI is involved in some way nowadays.
What's the connection between being an illegal immigrant and having a valid ID?
In my experience as a traveller, any ID from any country is good enough to get a mobile contract. Some countries might check VISA status too, but any valid temporary VISA is generally enough.
"Do it intentionally" is a funny way to spell "I'm forcing you to do it by law and if you don't you won't be allowed to communicate with other humans in a digital form or access digital content".
And even then it's still a leak when the provider inevitably gets hacked and all your data is out there and you have no legal recourse to get reasonable compensation for it.
I thought elements were created inside stars and dispersed by supernovas... Our sun has clearly not exploded yet (and I don't think it's big enough to ever ho supernova), so why does it matter what elements it can create?
I'm not weighting in on the ability of people to detect patterns, but hand washing is a bad example.
Detecting a pattern between 2 things that did happened (everyone but Dave ate pork, and everyone but Dave got sick) is orders of magnitude easier than detecting a pattern between something that did happened (this patient got sick) and something that didn't (everyone washed their hands).
> I honestly can't imagine this. If the AI says "However, a downside of approach B is that it takes O(n^2) time instead of the optimal O(nlog(n))", what do you think the odds are that it literally made up both of those facts? Because I'd be surprised if they were any lower than 30%. It's an extremely confident bullshitter, and you're going to use it to talk about engineering tradeoffs!?
Being confidently incorrect is not a unique characteristic of AIs, plenty of humans do it too. Being able to spot the bullshit is a core part of the job. If you can't spot the bullshit from AI, I wouldn't trust you to spot the bullshit from a coworker.
If it's your personal project, you are in charge of deciding which "behaviors that are down stream of version control" you want to adopt. If you are applying unnecessarily complex processes for a given project, that's on you.
> You're, perhaps unintentionally, moving the goalposts a bit. "Version control" doesn't just mean database of code snapshots. It simultaneously connotes all the related functions and development processes we have around version control.
Not OP, but I'd argue you are the one moving the goalpost here.
If someone says they are not using "version control", I'm going to assume that they are not using git (or similar) at all. Any other meaning would be so arbitrary to be almost useless. No one can guess where you draw the line in the sand between "I'm not using any version control tool" to "I'm technically using a version control tool but I'm not doing version control because I don't do X,Y,Z".
I personally can't imagine writing any non trivial piece of code without using git. Even in its more basic form, the advantages are overwhelming. But at no point of my 20+ years of development I've ever applied the same rigorous version control rules of professional environments to my personal projects. At best I've used branches to separate features (rarely, and mostly when I got tired of working on a problem and wanted to work on a different one for some time), and PRs to have an opportunity to review the changes I made to see if I forgot to do something. At "worst" I simply used it as a daily snapshot tool (possibly with some notes about what's left to do) or as a checkpoint after getting something complicated working.
If the author has finally figured out rigorous source control can be unnecessary and counterproductive on small projects - good on them! But if that's the case then say that. Calling the fine tuning of which process you want (or don't want) to use "no version control" is just misleading.